We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

As I have written previously, neither the statutes nor the regulations governing Inter Partes Review (IPR) require the party challenging the patent to have been charged with infringement, or even to establish any interest in practicing the claimed subject matter. While the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has not imposed any standing requirements on IPR petitioners, the January 9, 2017 Federal Circuit decision in Phigenix, Inc. v. Immunogen, Inc. shows that not every petitioner will have standing to appeala PTAB IPR decision.

Read this article on Foley’s PTAB Trial Insights blog for a summary of the Phigenix decision on standing for IPR appeals, and a discussion of some of the issues it raises.

Compare jurisdictions:Patents

“As in house counsel for a medium sized NZ group of companies, I find the newsfeeds very useful as they keep me up-to-date with the latest legal info in areas I have subscribed for. The quality is very good and I would not hesitate to recommend to colleagues.”